| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| No proof of 'Copy-the-iPhone'-order from Samsung |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-08 22:11:36 |
| Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case do not support Apple's claims that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order to its designers. It's pretty damning. Apple has very selectively and actively deleted sections of internal Samsung documents and talks to make it seem as if Samsung's designers were ordered to copy the iPhone. With the unredacted, full documents without Apple's deletions in hand, a completely different picture emerges: Samsung's designers are told to be as different and creative as possible. There's no 'copy the iPhone'-order anywhere, as Apple claimed. Instead, it says this: "designers rightly must make their own designs with conviction and confidence; do not strive to do designs to please me (the president); instead make designs with faces that are creative and diverse." I guess my initial scepticism about the documents was not uncalled for. What do you know - lawyers twist and turn the truth. Shocker, huh? |
|
| Damning? Silly really. |
| By jared_wilkes on 2012-10-08 23:00:48 |
|
The mistakes being made by groklaw are: 1) acting as if the entirety of the document wasn't presented to the Court as evidence. 2) portraying the submission of this document and selective quoting of it as Apple's "proof" that Samsung "copied the iPhone" [Remember: Samsung also portrayed itself as a design power house that already had designs comparable to the iPhone and that its current products are descendant from those designs and that anything remotely similar to Apple's designs was mere coincidence or necessity. The greatest import of the document is the design crisis, the need to respond to Apple, to change their ways. Whether by being different or copying.] 3) depicting the submitted documents and quotes (as filtered through an uneducated media) as something that is false, illegal, or dastardly [What? The lawyers selectively quoted from evidentiary documents? Oh my!] and, hence, the entire verdict is suspect and invalid. Edited 2012-10-08 23:11 UTC |
 - Score: 5 |
| RE: Hmm... Are Samsung's lawyers so incompetent |
| By jared_wilkes on 2012-10-08 23:07:20 |
|
No. Please read. The Court, the jury, the lawyers -- all had and have the unredacted documents. Groklaw is making a mountain out of a molehill and a very un-legal argument. Thom's explanation is very poor: Apple didn't edit Samsung documents like a ransom note and present that as evidence. The documents were argued over as a legal matter, Samsung had their say, the Judge had her say, and they were submitted to the jury. Apple's lawyers then selectively quoted them and the media misquoted them. That's it. Nothing illegal or heinous or shady. Edited 2012-10-08 23:08 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| ... |
| By Hiev on 2012-10-08 23:16:40 |
|
As always, Groklaws discovers that secret conspirancy that the judge, lawyers and the jury overlook. Edited 2012-10-08 23:24 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Hmm... Are Samsung's lawyers so incompetent |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-10-08 23:24:45 |
|
Right, because dry legal documents are clearly just as powerful as a lawyer's arguments. It's clear from these unsealed documents that the story Apple's lawyers told the judge, jury, and media - namely, that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order - was bullshit. Made up. A fairy tale. That's scummy. Of course, it's just regular lawyer stuff - but we still have a right to the truth - and it's clearly not on Apple's side. |
| - Score: 11 |
| different |
| By oper on 2012-10-08 23:32:03 |
|
> to be as different and creative as possible "As possible", because sometimes, instead of being creative and different just for the sake of it, it's better to choose the better ways for people, even if some of those ways already existed. |
| - Score: 1 |
| context |
| By arb1 on 2012-10-09 00:00:03 |
|
Welcome to taken outta context. Political parties been doing it since day 1. As for jury had full document yea they probably did but they being apple home city jury only focused on what apple present outta those documents they for sure in 21 hours didn't read any of them. Edited 2012-10-09 00:02 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[4]: Hmm... Are Samsung's lawyers so incompetent |
| By kwan_e on 2012-10-09 00:04:34 |
|
> (At least PJ is honest enough to air-quote "proof" and "copying". She's waging a far more subtle propaganda.) > design principles that Apple has embodied for 35+ years... As opposed to the blatant propaganda Apple produces that you've been taken hook, line and sinker. |
| - Score: 12 |
| bullshit |
| By kristoph on 2012-10-09 01:11:29 |
|
The question of whether of not Samsung actually gave 'an order' to copy anything is a matter of conjecture. The FACT is that they produced a giant document which had a side by side comparison of a current Samsung device and an iPhone and suggested - in writing - that specific functionality should be effectively replicated. You can argue that they were being 'inspired' by the iPhone or some shit like that but the FACT is that they followed some of those recommendations so someone had to given an 'order' to do that. |
| - Score: 1 |
| No Surprise |
| By Lorin on 2012-10-09 03:01:55 |
| Coming from Apple, I am not at all surprised, they are the same company that used Photoshop or something else to alter the aspect ratios of iPAD vs Galaxy Tab pictures to make them look like a copy in the German courts. |
| - Score: 13 |
| Bloggers twist and turn the truth and dont know the law |
| By jared_wilkes on 2012-10-09 03:19:29 |
|
> Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case do not support Apple's claims that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order to its designers. When did Apple claim "Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order to its designers"? I would love to see this "quote." > Apple has very selectively and actively deleted sections of internal Samsung documents and talks to make it seem as if Samsung's designers were ordered to copy the iPhone. Now they "made it seem" Samsung designers "were ordered to copy the iPhone." When did Apple make it seem there was an order to copy the iPhone? I followed the trial; I was never under this impression. Please provide a quote. > There's no 'copy the iPhone'-order anywhere, as Apple claimed. You've now claimed Apple claimed there was a "copy the iPhone" order 3 times now in nearly as many sentences. Please point me to a quote or any document which even remotely makes it appear there was an order to copy? Who is being "selective" and "actively deleting" to "make it seem as if" something else is the truth? |
| - Score: 5 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |